Well, let's see, shall we?

1. We'll see an end to the recession, taken literally, by Q4 09.

I think most folks agree this will happen. I'm not saying it has, just that the consensus is we're on the way there.

2. The online media space will be hit hard by the economic downturn in the first half, but by year's end, will have chalked up moderate gains over last year in terms of gross spend.

Jury's out, hard to call this one, but my own experience indicates this has a good chance of happening.

3. Google will see search share decline significantly for the first time ever. It will also struggle to find an answer to the question of how it diversifies its revenue in 2009.

Ok, so is this significant?! Well, yes - it's the first share slip Google's had, and it happened this year, but it's tiny. Hey, it's a start. As for the answer to how it diversifies revenue? Well, the jury is out, but it's still all AdWords, all the time, so far. YouTube is struggling with a model, Google admits. Meanwhile, Facebook seems to have found one (in self service)...

4. Despite #3 above, Google stock will soar in by Q3-4 of 2009, mainly because demand will pick up, and when demand picks up, it's like rain on a field of newly sown wheat.

This is already starting to happen - GOOG has moved from below 300 in March to well over 400 now. But we'll see if it continues. Several analysts are predicting a return to 600 or 650, in fact.

5. Tied to #3 above, Microsoft will gain at least five points of search share in 2009, perhaps as much as 10.

I know, I'm crazy, right? But the company did release Bing just last month, already won two or so points of share, and has a 100mm marketing war chest, and its major distribution deals have yet to hit Comscore. Wait and see....

6. Yahoo and AOL will merge.

This one I may be wrong on, because first, AOL has to spin out. Or maybe it almost does but then combines with Yahoo this year....

7. ... in the second half of the year, Microsoft will buy its search monetization from the combined company.

Well...again, this takes longer to develop that this year, I'm guessing. I probably have egg on my face here.

8. Apple will see a significant reversal of recent fortunes.

Wow, I am so wrong on this so far. Even with Job's health issues, which are not what I meant when I wrote this. There is always the second half of the year.

9. Major brands will continue to struggle with the best way to interact with "social media."

True so far, but wow, what a great, great opportunity for folks who run companies in this space. Cough.

10. Agencies will increasingly see their role as that of publishers. Publishers will increasingly see their role as that of agencies.

I think this one has become obvious. I'll hope to prove it when I do my annual round up at the end of the year.

11. Twitter will continue its meteoric rise.

Remember, I said this back in January. Twitter was at 5.9mm uniques according to Compete. It's now broken 20mm there, and we all know it's way bigger than that. It took a pause last month, and we're all waiting to see what June's numbers look like....

12. Facebook will do something entirely shocking and unpredictable....As I think about it, it might be as simple as making Facebook Connect truly open, and changing its policies to make it drop dead easy to get data out of the service. Also, Facebook will build a Twitter competitor, but it will never leave beta and will ultimately be abandoned as not worth the time. Instead, Facebook will "friend" Twitter and the two companies will become strong partners.

Wow. They did it. At least the first part of it. We'll see about the second part.

13. Lucky #13 is reserved for my eternal mobile prediction: 2009 will see the year mobility becomes presumptive in every aspect of the web.

I think finally, this one will be true.

14. Lastly, I promise, I will have sold my book and will be hard at work on it.

Well, we'll see....

Thanks for keeping me honest!

Well, that's changing. Sort of. From a Bing blog post today:

There has been much discussion of real-time search and the premium on immediacy of data that has been created primarily by Twitter. We’ve been watching this phenomenon with great interest, and listening carefully to what consumers really want in this space. Today we’re unveiling an initial foray into integrating more real time data into our search results, starting with some of the more prominent and prolific Twitterers from a variety of spheres. This includes Tweets from folks from our own search technology and business sphere like Danny Sullivan or Kara Swisher as well as those from spheres of more general consumer appeal like Al Gore or Ryan Seacrest. Starting later today, when you search for these folks names in association with Twitter, you’ll see their latest Tweets come up in real time on Bing’s search results.

Oh boy! I wonder if maybe...I'm one of those folks? Sigh. No such luck. Although, to be honest, I can't seem to make it work for anyone, including Danny and Kara. Maybe it's not working yet in my area.

In any case, what DOES come up is my and everyone else I tested's Twitter account, at least when I add "Twitter" to the query. That's a major step forward from where Bing was even at launch. That said, there is NO reason to make folks put the word "Twitter" into the query. None. That is a failed use case. Commit, or don't commit, but don't ask users to specify Twitter to know what someone might be saying in real time. Better to indicate that the query has real time results, and offer them if a searcher wants them. Or figure out some other clever UI solution. Real time is here to stay, may as well design to it, and not ask users to do it for you.

After all, with the whole Websquared thing, we'll soon be leaving real time trails all over the globe, and we may well want them surfaced by our favorite search engine, no?

But good on ya, Microsoft, for dipping your toe into the water. Google, your ball.

UPDATE: It works now. I'm one of the chosen ones! Oh joy!

I dunno, it just struck me, Google can't do a helluva lot to help you, Newspaper Industry.

I won't go into the whole thing, because, honestly, I just don't have the, er, free time.

However, I do find it noteworthy that Chris's much-linked to riposte to Malcolm's initial evisceration comes on Wired.com, where, shock of all shocks, advertising is prominently featured. Free, of course, doesn't come without a business model.

Having humans, not software, supply the advice is important. Max Ventilla, who formerly was at Google and is now Aardvark’s chief executive, said, “Often the most useful answers don’t answer the original question. Example: ‘You don’t want to go to the Caribbean now — it’s the rainy season — you want to go to Hawaii.’ ” ONCE you try Aardvark’s service, you can’t look at Yahoo Answers, the current leader in questions-and-answers, without feeling pity for its now-manifest limitations.

Google has begun this public-relations offensive because it is in the midst of a treacherous rite of passage for powerful technology companies — regulators are intensely scrutinizing its every move, as they once did with AT&T, I.B.M., Intel and Microsoft. Some analysts say that government opposition, here or in Europe, could pose the biggest threat to Google’s continued success.

Facebook is way more than its newsfeed, and its search play is key to proving that value, and extending it....No doubt building Facebook search today is akin to building Google ten years ago - bigger, most likely, in terms of data, algorithmic, and platform challenges.

If only I had waited a few days, I could have pointed to Fred's piece in Wired, out this week. He profiles the ongoing feud between the King of Search, Google, and the upstart, Facebook. In his piece, he writes:

For the last decade or so, the Web has been defined by Google's algorithms—rigorous and efficient equations that parse practically every byte of online activity to build a dispassionate atlas of the online world. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg envisions a more personalized, humanized Web, where our network of friends, colleagues, peers, and family is our primary source of information, just as it is offline. In Zuckerberg's vision, users will query this "social graph" to find a doctor, the best camera, or someone to hire—rather than tapping the cold mathematics of a Google search. It is a complete rethinking of how we navigate the online world, one that places Facebook right at the center. In other words, right where Google is now.

I agree that of all the contenders out there right now (including Twitter), Facebook has the most data, position, and potential to upset Google's dominance of the web. But I disagree with one premise of the piece, which is that Facebook's proprietary approach to the data it stores presents a blind spot to Google that gives Facebook a competitive edge. Fred writes:

Together, this data comprises a mammoth amount of activity, almost a second Internet. By Facebook's estimates, every month users share 4 billion pieces of information—news stories, status updates, birthday wishes, and so on. They also upload 850 million photos and 8 million videos. But anyone wanting to access that stuff must go through Facebook; the social network treats it all as proprietary data, largely shielding it from Google's crawlers. Except for the mostly cursory information that users choose to make public, what happens on Facebook's servers stays on Facebook's servers. That represents a massive and fast-growing blind spot for Google, whose long-stated goal is to "organize the world's information."

I think it's a major strategic mistake to not offer this information to Google (and anyone else that wants to crawl it.) In fact, I'd argue that the right thing to do is to make just about everything possible available to Google to crawl, then sit back and watch while Google struggles with whether or not to "organize it and make it universally available." A regular damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario, that....

For an example of what I mean, look no further than Twitter. That service makes every single tweet available as a crawlable resource. And Google certainly is crawling Twitter pages, but the key thing to watch is whether the service is surfacing "superfresh" results when the query merits it. So far, the answer is a definitive NO.

Why?

Well, perhaps I'm being cynical, but I think it's because Google doesn't want to push massive value and traffic to Twitter without a business deal in place where it gets to monetize those real time results.

Is that "organizing the world's information and making it universally available?" Well, no. At least, not yet.

By making all its information available to Google's crawlers (and fixing its terrible URL structure in the process), Facebook could shine an awfully bright light on this interesting conflict in interest.

Many folks have asked me when CM Summit videos would be posted, several are up now. They include the opener, above, in which I give a short overview of the state of online marketing from my perspective - start at about 6 mins in if you want to miss the throat clearing of setting up the show and thanking folks I've worked with. Perhaps the key thoughts: People Don't Join Ad Networks, and Publishers Are Communities of Mind.

The best thing you can do to minimize your risk of identity theft is ensure that your personal information is secure. It is very often small acts of criminal mischief that result in years of hardship for individual consumers. Applying common sense can provide a measure of identity theft protection. 1. Don't leave your financial paperwork lying around your house. Store paperwork with personally identifying information in a filing cabinet that is secured with a tamper-proof lock. 2. Never reveal any personal information to anyone who has called or e-mailed you. Ask them to send their request to you in writing through the mail. 3. Sign up for a credit monitoring service. It is a great way to track your credit improvement and stop identity theft. Additional Resources Proactive identity theft protection with Lifelock Monitor your credit score to track improvement and spot identity theft red flags

Ads by Pheedo

In any case, this morning I noticed a post on Mashable about Facebook's new "superfresh" search plans - in essence, a plan to make the Facebook newsfeed searchable, and most impressively, to filter that through your social graph. In short, this is a Twitter search competitor with a Facebook twist, and while I think it's a fine move, it's nowhere near where Facebook needs to be in terms of search, and it seems a bit myopic: Facebook is way more than its newsfeed, and its search play is key to proving that value, and extending it.

First, a minor rant. Facebook search circa 2009 is akin to Alta Vista search circa 1994, or Ebay search circa 2004: very dumb and entirely lacking in structured, intelligently parsed data. In fact, it's worse that those two examples. It's clear that there are almost no intelligent signals in the way Facebook does its internal search, and I can't imagine anyone is happy with it. A few examples:

Here's a search for "john battelle status" as of today. There are no results. How on earth can that be? Not even a referral to my status updates? The engine clearly doesn't understand the concept of "status" which on Facebook, seems a crime.

Here's another one:

This is a search for "graffiti application". It does not find the popular application, Grafitti, which has more than 10 million installs and over 2 million active users. Whaaaa?

I could go on and on, but that's not the point. The point is, Facebook search could get a lot better. And I am *sure* the company is deep in planning on how to take its search to a new level - no small feat, given the size and scope of its service. No doubt building Facebook search today is akin to building Google ten years ago - bigger, most likely, in terms of data, algorithmic, and platform challenges.

So given the company is working on it, let's give them some input. What do we want it to be? Here are a few ideas I have, I'd love to hear yours:

- Leverage the social graph in search. When people search for other people (most likely the highest percentage use case on Facebook), show me that person's friends. Linked In does a very good job of search features like this, and is only getting better at it.

- Rethink how results are presented. Currently, it's all about pages on Facebook. Why? Why not think about search results in a similar manner to how we all understand search - multiple results, easily scanned, with short descriptors of what the link will bring us? There's a lot of room to innovate on top of this interface, but it's table stakes at least.

- Make search social. Show me what others are searching for, trending searches on the service, popular "found" items. Search is a signal, use it!

- Make search results linkable. When I do a search on Google, I can link to it. Here's a link to a Google search for "graffiti application," for example. And yes, the first result is the right one...

- Give me image search. I want to see pictures related to the results - Facebook is a highly visual service, so surface that!

These are off the top of my head (for the second time - I had others that I cannot recall...), but you get the picture. What do you want to see in Facebook search?

Microsoft’s theory is that Mr. Lam was running or working for low-ranking sites that took potential client information for auto insurers. The complaint said that he directed traffic to competitors’ Web sites so they would pay for those clicks and exhaust their advertising budgets quickly, which let the lower-ranking sites that he sponsored move up in the paid-search results.

When people clicked through to his site, it asked them to supply contact information, which he then resold to auto insurance companies, according to Microsoft’s complaint, which estimated his profit at $250,000. In the complaint, it also said it had to credit back $1.5 million to advertisers because of the Lams’ alleged fake clicks. Microsoft is seeking $750,000 in damages from the defendants.

Although small advertisers have sued search firms, complaining the firms did not do enough to prevent fraudulent clicks, this is among the first cases where a search provider has gone after a suspected perpetrator.

Google vs. Bing Battle Heating Up: Is Google Scared?

Google to Launch a Twitter Search Engine?

Social Media Goo: Cadbury Campaign Going Viral

Apparently I am not alone in noticing Mashable's ascendance.

Anil Dash has a very funny send up of all this in a future forward timeline satire here. His point is - why is everyone falling all over themeselves to get their vanity URL on Facebook - or Twitter, or anywhere else for that matter - when the web is an open place and anyone can get their own URL, after all.

Well, yes and no. I've been complaining about Facebook's terrible link structure for a long time. We all spend time there, and create and share value there, but up till this weekend, it's been very difficult to point folks to places *inside* Facebook from places *outside* Facebook. The future of the web is ecosystemic - it's not about being in one place - this blog, that Twitter feed, or that Facebook page, it's about the ability to be anywhere, depending on the context and the moment. Sewing it all together is critical, and this move should make Facebook that much easier to incorporate into an ongoing, web wide conversation. I hope.